• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US military history

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
As we started to withdraw, the SV forces just collapsed. and were overrun by the NVA and VC.
Click to expand...

As is my understanding (from doing a good bit of reading on the vietnam conflict over the winter, I, admittedly, wasn't around to see it myself....

ARVN did extremely well against the NVA after the US withdrew, until the US congress stopped feeding their army ammo and fuel. Once their army (which was mechanized on the american model) didn't have the supplies to function, it collapsed in the face of a numerically superior foe.

 
war of 1812 was the closest to a loss, but it probally would have have turned around had news of the Battle of New Orleans reached the negotiation team.. but then again the people at new orleans would have known the war was over....

We did lose vietnam - few will argue because we got outdone on a military level (the tut offensive was a disaster for the vc / nva forces in terms of a military standpoint) but probably because politically we just got out manuvered due to the unreasonable expectations/unpopularity of the war.

Korea never ended technically. South Korea and North Korea are still very much at war, they just arn't shooting each other. We didn't lose in terms of "Holding back communism" because a communist nation invaded a capitalist nation, and well... 1.5 years of fighting and 1.5 years of a cease-fire negotiation... we find that things pretty much stayed the same in terms of borders. Nevermind both countries were devastated, at least the capitalist one recovered and the commie one has nukes... 🙁
 
Originally posted by: mugs
People just expect absurdly low casualties these days.
Click to expand...

I swear, I think people today think that we should have a war without killing anyone on either side.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: mugs
People just expect absurdly low casualties these days.
Click to expand...

I swear, I think people today think that we should have a war without killing anyone on either side.
Click to expand...

Ofcourse they think so. Which involves no combat, that would've been kinda sweet now wouldn't it?

Oh, and you did loose vietnam. You withdrew, killed 1.5million civilians, and the nva ruled.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: RichardE
eh..don't think you can call Vietnam really a victory..
Click to expand...
US casualties: 57,000
Vietnamese casualties: 3 million +

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
let's see
civil war
korean war
vietnam war
afghanistan
iraq

contrary to popular belief, the US has lost more wars than won lately
Click to expand...
The USA won the Civil War. The CSA lost. I won't touch on the rest, you need to get your facts straight first.
Click to expand...

What do casualites have to do with anything? If we fought China they could have 800million casualites while we only suffered 300million...difference is we'd all be gone and they'd still have more people left than we started with.

Win/Lose is determined by who achieves their objectives. They wanted Vietnam. We wanted to stop them. They got Vietnam, we didn't stop them. They won, we lost. Period.
Click to expand...

Because the US did win militarily in Vietnam. Where we lost was politically. My point was that the US military did the job there. We lost there because we never had an objective to win in the first place. In fact, it is my opinion that the only real objective of the Vietnam War was for defense contractors to sell bombs and guns and planes, and that it was the objective of our leaders to "lose" from the very beginning. Had we actually fought to win, it would have been quick, and less weapons would have been sold.
 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Amplifier
News Flash: We beat Iraq in under 2 months.
Click to expand...

News Flash: The goal was not just to remove Saddam, but also to establish a stable democracy, and ensure the safety of the nation. Last time I checked the nation was destabilized, struggling for basic infrastructure needs, and people were getting picked off like flies. Your utilization of past tense is premature.
Click to expand...

Occupancy != war

Quite frankly, the only reason the US has "failed" in its war efforts since WWII is because it no longer fights wars the way they should be fought, i.e. either to commit large-scale armed robbery or to protect yourself from same. That is the plan and purpose of ALL wars -- to steal by means of violent force.
The reason the US no longer appears to win its wars is because we did not go to Iraq to steal from the Iraqi citizens, we did not go to Vietnam to steal from the Vietnamese... we went to both those places to steal from ourselves, in which we were completely successful, thus we appeared to "lose." In the US, war is a costly make-work program.
 
We beat the crap out of you Americans. There is a reason they don't teach you about the War of 1812 in schools. Trust me you don't want a rematch, our tank would own you all. But really though, be captured Detroit with even shooting anyone, burnt DC and repelled all 7 of your attempted invasions. This was when you guys had 7.5 million people living in you country and we had 300k and a couple British Regulars. 😉
 
Wow, I am appalled at so many people's lack of critical thinking of history. Especially when I see massively retarded things cited like the Civil War - sure in a philosophical sense you could say we "lost" because it divided the country and made brother fight brother. But in reality, to cite the Civil War as a lost in US military history is just plain idiotic.

Korea is a pretty dumb suggestion too. Forgetting the semantics of what "war" means in terms of the US constitution and instead take the layman's use of "war" the Korean War was definitely a success.

Furthermore more, in terms of "US Military History" - which is exactly what the OP initially asked - the war in Vietnam was a success in terms of military engagements. Obviously things didn't work out so well when the military forces pulled out, and the south Vietnamese were overrun by the NVA.
This is a good example of people's ignorance of the history behind Vietnam:
Originally posted by: BriGy86
Vietnam we lost definitely, if i remember correctly we were fleaing the capitol as the opposing army sourounded it and advanced
Click to expand...
People were fleeing, but the only US military folks left, if I remember correctly, were a few detachements of Marines at the US embassy - in addition to more than a few CIA operatives and other military "advisors."
People don't even seem to know what the hell happened, but rather just go with how they feel things happened. There is truthiness for you, Colbert.

Furthermore the War of 1812 was hardly a loss at all. Yes, the British soldiers in Canada (even though most Canadians think they actually did some of the work) repelled an American foray - but in a war you win some, and you lose some. The War of 1812 was a victory in the sense that the US stood toe to toe with the British and hell even in a bulk of the naval engagement the US did extremely well against the British, which was unheard of in the world at the time. The US asserted military strength, independence, and became recognized as a world player. To cite the burning of part of Washington DC as some sort of "loss" is a rather clueless and ignorant way of concluding that we "lost" that war. Not losing any land and fighting the world's superpower (Britain) to a stalemate is hardly a loss.

 
Originally posted by: Babbles
The War of 1812 was a victory in the sense that the US stood toe to toe with the British and hell even in a bulk of the naval engagement the US
Click to expand...

What?! The British were fighting freakin Napoleon at the same time do you think they were that worried about the Americans overruning Canada? They had bigger problems to deal with. If they had thrown everything they had at you guys it most likely would have been an American slaughter.
 
Originally posted by: Firsttime
Originally posted by: Babbles
The War of 1812 was a victory in the sense that the US stood toe to toe with the British and hell even in a bulk of the naval engagement the US
Click to expand...

What?! The British were fighting freakin Napoleon at the same time do you think they were that worried about the Americans overruning Canada? They had bigger problems to deal with. If they had thrown everything they had at you guys it most likely would have been an American slaughter.
Click to expand...

The US involvement with the War of 1812 started while Britain was involved with that Napoleon mess; however if you bothered to read history, the Napoleonic War ended and Britain did send troops to fight the US. Which if I remember was how they were able to burn Washington DC. Furthermore, if I recall correctly at the somewhat famous battle of New Orleans, the British soldiers that fought were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns. That is something that makes Andrew Jackson's battle of New Orleans so amazing is that his hodgepodge mix of people managed to completely defeat twice their numbers who happened to be experienced combat veterans.

I'm not going to say that the War of 1812 was a major, major victory for the US in terms of securing more land - it wasn't. However it surely is not a loss either.
 
Originally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Firsttime
Originally posted by: Babbles
The War of 1812 was a victory in the sense that the US stood toe to toe with the British and hell even in a bulk of the naval engagement the US
Click to expand...

What?! The British were fighting freakin Napoleon at the same time do you think they were that worried about the Americans overruning Canada? They had bigger problems to deal with. If they had thrown everything they had at you guys it most likely would have been an American slaughter.
Click to expand...

The US involvement with the War of 1812 started while Britain was involved with that Napoleon mess; however if you bothered to read history, the Napoleonic War ended and Britain did send troops to fight the US. Which if I remember was how they were able to burn Washington DC. Furthermore, if I recall correctly at the somewhat famous battle of New Orleans, the British soldiers that fought were veterans of the Napoleonic campaigns. That is something that makes Andrew Jackson's battle of New Orleans so amazing is that his hodgepodge mix of people managed to completely defeat twice their numbers who happened to be experienced combat veterans.

I'm not going to say that the War of 1812 was a major, major victory for the US in terms of securing more land - it wasn't. However it surely is not a loss either.
Click to expand...

You can call it whatever you want. I am just trying to point out that while we were fighting on this side of the pond the British were fighting Napoleon (they didn't invade France until 1814, the same year the war of 1812 ended) and were not able to throw their full strength into the conflict.

 
Originally posted by: Beefy6969
We got own3d at Pearl Harbor. As well as a few battles in the Pacific thereafter.
Click to expand...

If you're going to get into individual battles, the US military has lost plenty between WWI and WWII alone.
 
Originally posted by: Amplifier
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Amplifier
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands


Did the military launch an attack? Is the military maintaining actions in the area? Then it's a military action. The military is nothing more or less than the enforcement arm of a political body. Wars are political actions utilizing the military.

Only when no military personnel are involved is an action not (or no longer) a war. When you send a diplomat, when you send advisors, when you send relief staff, when you send teachers, when you send workers...these things are not military actions. When you send in men with guns in armored vehicles, it's a war. Euphamisms are a childs toy.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha, great retort. No way I can compete with that. 😎
Click to expand...

Then we're at war with Germany, France, and 100 area's where we station troops for 'enforcement'. Your arguments (which you've copied from a college professor) hold no water. Our military is almost unbeatable in an actual war. Peacekeeping is another story as we have to rely on a non-US force to accomplish our goals.

I don't blame the failure of the Iraqi people on our military. You might, but you anyone who doubts the fighting ability of our troops is an idiot.
Click to expand...

Listen you ignorant bitch, I copied nothing. Instead I have dedicated my life to studying and critical thinking instead of riding the coattails of blind nationalism and party propaganda.

Do you mean to honestly tell me that you equate having a few dozen to a few hundred troops at scattered bases in various locations to the massive deployment of force currently in Iraq? Cause if you do then brother, you need to up the meds.

You haven't addressed my arguments whatsoever, just shouted mindless tripe with no support and no core reasoning.

Of course our military is unbeatable in conventional conflicts...we now spend as much money on it as THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED! DUHHHHH. That doesn't mean that we're able to accomplish the objectives the politicians set for us, because force of arms isn't always the way - something which they seem to never understand. Destroying a nations military is irrelevant if you can't hold the territory in peace and prosperity.

I don't blame the Iraq failures on the military either. Never have. It was doomed to fail before the first shots were fired...not by the soldiers, but by the politicians and the very inception of it.

I never said ANYTHING about the troops. EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER. I challenge you to find a single point where I said anything about military quality, quantity, or any related inferences. You won't. Because I didn't. What I said, and it's true, is that our military HAS and will CONTINUE to fail to achieve the political objectives set by the government.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Amplifier
News Flash: We beat Iraq in under 2 months.
Click to expand...

News Flash: The goal was not just to remove Saddam, but also to establish a stable democracy, and ensure the safety of the nation. Last time I checked the nation was destabilized, struggling for basic infrastructure needs, and people were getting picked off like flies. Your utilization of past tense is premature.
Click to expand...

Occupancy != war

Quite frankly, the only reason the US has "failed" in its war efforts since WWII is because it no longer fights wars the way they should be fought, i.e. either to commit large-scale armed robbery or to protect yourself from same. That is the plan and purpose of ALL wars -- to steal by means of violent force.
The reason the US no longer appears to win its wars is because we did not go to Iraq to steal from the Iraqi citizens, we did not go to Vietnam to steal from the Vietnamese... we went to both those places to steal from ourselves, in which we were completely successful, thus we appeared to "lose." In the US, war is a costly make-work program.
Click to expand...

You know, viewed that way I can accept it. It's very much in-line with the whole military industrial complex warning (and the movie 'Why We Fight'). The only downside to this is that we really can't base win/loss records on secret agendas. We kind of have to go with the overt stated purposes I think.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: RichardE
eh..don't think you can call Vietnam really a victory..
Click to expand...
US casualties: 57,000
Vietnamese casualties: 3 million +

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
let's see
civil war
korean war
vietnam war
afghanistan
iraq

contrary to popular belief, the US has lost more wars than won lately
Click to expand...
The USA won the Civil War. The CSA lost. I won't touch on the rest, you need to get your facts straight first.
Click to expand...
As far as facts are concerned, Superior Enemy Body Count does not a victory make.
As for ideology/ politics adopted by combatants...
VietNam went to the Communists, against whom we were fighting.
After the cessation of hostilities , we courted economic development with them, on their terms.

I would say that makes the Winner = North VietNam .


That was another conflict that was administered by politicians with no stomach for doing what war requires. Much like todays conflict in Iraq.
One can expect a similar outcome as Lebanon in the 70's and 80's.

 
Originally posted by: tangent1138
Originally posted by: ed21x


afghanistan- we managed to remove the enemy regime from power- and did it quickly too! that sounds like victory.
Click to expand...

our "victory" in Afghanistan involved giving Stinger missiles to one Osama Bin Laden.
Click to expand...
You are confusing the Mujahadeen's defeat of Soviet forces with today's conflict.

 
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Amplifier
News Flash: We beat Iraq in under 2 months.
Click to expand...

News Flash: The goal was not just to remove Saddam, but also to establish a stable democracy, and ensure the safety of the nation. Last time I checked the nation was destabilized, struggling for basic infrastructure needs, and people were getting picked off like flies. Your utilization of past tense is premature.
Click to expand...

Occupancy != war

Quite frankly, the only reason the US has "failed" in its war efforts since WWII is because it no longer fights wars the way they should be fought, i.e. either to commit large-scale armed robbery or to protect yourself from same. That is the plan and purpose of ALL wars -- to steal by means of violent force.
The reason the US no longer appears to win its wars is because we did not go to Iraq to steal from the Iraqi citizens, we did not go to Vietnam to steal from the Vietnamese... we went to both those places to steal from ourselves, in which we were completely successful, thus we appeared to "lose." In the US, war is a costly make-work program.
Click to expand...

You know, viewed that way I can accept it. It's very much in-line with the whole military industrial complex warning (and the movie 'Why We Fight'). The only downside to this is that we really can't base win/loss records on secret agendas. We kind of have to go with the overt stated purposes I think.
Click to expand...
That waging war is a make-work program in the US is hardly a "secret agenda." I'd say it's about as overt as anything can be. That is unless you think reality is created by the lies of politicians.
 
Originally posted by: AlienCraft
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: RichardE
eh..don't think you can call Vietnam really a victory..
Click to expand...
US casualties: 57,000
Vietnamese casualties: 3 million +

Originally posted by: FrontlineWarrior
let's see
civil war
korean war
vietnam war
afghanistan
iraq

contrary to popular belief, the US has lost more wars than won lately
Click to expand...
The USA won the Civil War. The CSA lost. I won't touch on the rest, you need to get your facts straight first.
Click to expand...
As far as facts are concerned, Superior Enemy Body Count does not a victory make.
As for ideology/ politics adopted by combatants...
VietNam went to the Communists, against whom we were fighting.
After the cessation of hostilities , we courted economic development with them, on their terms.

I would say that makes the Winner = North VietNam .


That was another conflict that was administered by politicians with no stomach for doing what war requires. Much like todays conflict in Iraq.
One can expect a similar outcome as Lebanon in the 70's and 80's.
Click to expand...

Wars are NEVER fought for ideology or politics. That might be the propaganda that rallies the masses but it is never the reason.

The US' purpose is fighting the Vietnam War was to create a market to sell weapons. And by that reasoning we won without question. I don't support that reason (I'm actually as anti-war as they come) but surely you really don't think we went there to "fight communism," do you? Nor were the NVA defending communism (they were fighting for their national independence).
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Amplifier
News Flash: We beat Iraq in under 2 months.
Click to expand...

News Flash: The goal was not just to remove Saddam, but also to establish a stable democracy, and ensure the safety of the nation. Last time I checked the nation was destabilized, struggling for basic infrastructure needs, and people were getting picked off like flies. Your utilization of past tense is premature.
Click to expand...

Occupancy != war

Quite frankly, the only reason the US has "failed" in its war efforts since WWII is because it no longer fights wars the way they should be fought, i.e. either to commit large-scale armed robbery or to protect yourself from same. That is the plan and purpose of ALL wars -- to steal by means of violent force.
The reason the US no longer appears to win its wars is because we did not go to Iraq to steal from the Iraqi citizens, we did not go to Vietnam to steal from the Vietnamese... we went to both those places to steal from ourselves, in which we were completely successful, thus we appeared to "lose." In the US, war is a costly make-work program.
Click to expand...

You know, viewed that way I can accept it. It's very much in-line with the whole military industrial complex warning (and the movie 'Why We Fight'). The only downside to this is that we really can't base win/loss records on secret agendas. We kind of have to go with the overt stated purposes I think.
Click to expand...
That waging war is a make-work program in the US is hardly a "secret agenda." I'd say it's about as overt as anything can be. That is unless you think reality is created by the lies of politicians.
Click to expand...

"Make work" less than "Make Fortune" for industrialists.
Please refer to President Eisenhower's prophetic speech.
 
Vietnam and Korea were victories for the US and allies. Simply put, they were an extension of the Cold War and because of those conflicts it prevented the USSR and the USA from going at each other's throats directly which would have resulted in allout nuclear war. Those conflicts were victories because they allowed those nations to let out their aggression without going full force at each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top